Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Lillith Blackheart on 19 Apr 2010, 10:17
-
Ok.
Look. I said this to a mod in a PM, but I am going to say this again and publicly where people can see it.
While I completely understand what it is you people are trying to get away from and the reason behind the separation from Chatsubo -- and trust me, I do completely understand, I have moderated many a forum in my day, and am well aware of what happened there -- you people need to take a deep breath and relax.
First of all, getting a PM asking you to not use harsh language (and I am not going to get in specifics because I am not questioning moderation on a specific instance but as a general whole) because instead of saying "I disagree with X" you said "I think X is incorrect", which means exactly the same damn thing to a T is nonsense.
Secondly, you're locking a thread on and off at random times when the thread isn't even heated. It is a simple, calm discussion about a topic which may be sensitive, but both sides of the discussion were very calm and neither was being nasty. They were simply offering their opinions and substantiating them.
Listen to me here, because I have moderated many forums and administrated many forums, and I currently am an admin (the primary one lately) on a forum that is designed for "family friendly fun" and therefore is far more strict than most...
You are going to kill off your userbase.
There is a point where you go from trying your hardest to limit sniping and pissing matches to be crushing any effective discussion because the slightest remark that could be viewed as inflammatory, whether it was viewed as inflammatory by the posters themselves, garnered a kneejerk response from one of the moderators and they shut it down.
At the same time I am certain you are going to quote the FAQ from me, I am going to pre-empt that by posting from it myself.
Here you go:
Q: Doesn't being polite to people I disagree with make me a hypocrite?
A: No. It makes you a grown-up.
Does this apply only in the aspect of people having to be all butterflies and honey with people or does it also not apply to people being able to have a grown-up discussion about a topic that may be a bit sensitive?
You can politely disagree about a sensitive topic, and the Amarr Bloc thread has been doing that fairly well.
I politely disagreed with someone in a thread and was told to not be as aggressive.
I'm sorry, but I think that perchance we might need to form some consensus on what "polite" is, because I think some people think "polite" is being calm and rational and not rude, and some people apparently think "polite" means gumdrops and lollipops.
So how about you span out a bit more what that is in the FAQ instead of just saying "It's subjective, deal with it." Because you say people should be grown-ups, but then turn around and take away their lollis like they're three year olds.
If you want people to be grown-ups, treat them as though they are.
Editted by indirect request. :)
-
Dunno about specifics because apparently I missed it, but I would say that this particular post strikes me as very angry and hostile and not the sort of thing this site wants to promote.
-
It is written bluntly strictly to make the point more evident, but I assure you it is neither angry nor hostile. I am very calm as I don't have any sort of emotional or psychological stake in the forum as a whole.
Action me if you feel so motivated.
-
Hey, I'm just saying. :) While I didn't have you in mind at all, this does sort of point up the issue that Cia and I had brought up in the thread about the possible new "trolling" rule.
-
The subject can be editted.
I don't really care. If it would make people happier I'll gladly do it. I can even take the entire two F-bombs out of the post, too. They were more habit in speaking than anything.
Edit: And done.
-
Its a bit annoying to have active threads locked every now and again, agreed.
But it ain't this bad, ain't it? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOmFLF51qRg)
The above link might be considered NSFW.
-
Its a bit annoying to have active threads locked every now and again, agreed.
But it ain't this bad, ain't it? (http://'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOmFLF51qRg)
It's more than just the locked threads, Laerise. It's the mentality behind the locked threads when nothing bad is going on and the resultant stimmying of conversation that will inevitably come out of it, not-withstanding the amount of work it will cause the Moderators.
More importantly it's the fact that if a conversation like the one in the Amarr Bloc thread was something that was necessary to action, then there is an over-arching display from the moderators that we are small children incapable of having a reasoned discussion without immediately falling to yelling at each other with the slightest provocation.
It's a bad precedent.
-
Come on, cut them some lack, this forum is a learning process for everyone involved.
Only contructive and level headed criticism will mold(sp?) it into something that everyone can enjoy.
-
...that would be exactly what was given here.
-
I don't believe you were warned, nor was there any other punitive action taken? Just a reminder that labeling someone else's play as 'incorrect' might not be the best way to go about having a polite discussion?
I think it was noted in the PM that it wasn't a warning, and that the mod involved didn't believe you were being intentionally insulting, but that it might be better to phrase things in a way that wouldn't seem insulting?
The Amarr Bloc thread is a separate matter. It is being moderated here and there precisely because we don't want it to turn ugly. It is early days yet, and we want to make sure that it is clear from the start how this forum should be. If that makes some of the moderation seem harsh or over-sensitive, it is probably just a natural and unavoidable consequence of that.
It is possible to make points without being excessively combative. It isn't always as fun and certainly making your point strongly will often not result in conflict, but we are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of rhetorical enthusiasm to keep a tone of discussion rather than argument.
It doesn't take much for someone else to see your intent as entirely other - and likely more hostile - than it really is, and things go downhill from there.
-
I suspect the mods are feeling their way forward, and so occasionally might react slightly off from their ideal. It happens.
And, were I one of them, I don't know that I would take the OP as calm and level-headed (though I certainly can see the constructive bits within it).
-
I suspect the mods are feeling their way forward, and so occasionally might react slightly off from their ideal. It happens.
And, were I one of them, I don't know that I would take the OP as calm and level-headed (though I certainly can see the constructive bits within it).
Exactly. I'm sure as a moderation veteran, Lilith, you are familiar with the gaps that can exist between a person's intent and what someone - or sometimes nearly everyone - else sees when they read a post. It's a limit of the medium, and one that hopefully the moderation here will help people be more aware of.
-
I'd like to add that people should feel free to use the Report button. This forum does provide you a field to enter why you are reporting something, so please explain in detail.
Abuse of said button will, of course, also be grounds for moderator action.
-
I don't believe you were warned, nor was there any other punitive action taken? Just a reminder that labeling someone else's play as 'incorrect' might not be the best way to go about having a polite discussion?
I don't believe that punitive action was stated as being taken. The thing about it is that no one's play was labelled as incorrect. The only thing that was wrong was the word incorrect was used. Even though "incorrect" was the correct word to convey what was being said.
You call it a reminder, I call it being warned. Since a warning is nothing but a reminder that there are rules that you may or may not be close to violating.
What was said in the situation indicated was that I felt they had incorrectly categorized something. I was "reminded" that I should instead have said I disagreed with how they categorized something. Those statements are identical in every aspect save for juxtaposition of "disagree" with "incorrect". The meaning and end result is the same. Saying you think something is incorrect and saying "Your RP is wrong" are two entirely different things, and anyone should be able to see that.
I think it was noted in the PM that it wasn't a warning, and that the mod involved didn't believe you were being intentionally insulting, but that it might be better to phrase things in a way that wouldn't seem insulting?
The point being made is that in no way should that have seemed insulting to begin with. Ghost was obviously not at all hurt by it, and in fact took the statement exactly as it was both intended and worded, and the discussion continued. That's really the nuts of it. There's nothing insulting about the sentence. If I had said "You're wrong about this" that would be one thing, but that wasn't what was said or even hinted at, it was "I think you may have set up your categories incorrectly". That says just what it means "You're on the right track I think, but I think you might have something incorrect in your differentiation as compared to what you're trying to say".
The Amarr Bloc thread is a separate matter. It is being moderated here and there precisely because we don't want it to turn ugly. It is early days yet, and we want to make sure that it is clear from the start how this forum should be. If that makes some of the moderation seem harsh or over-sensitive, it is probably just a natural and unavoidable consequence of that.
I don't agree that it is unavoidable, Silver. I appreciate what you're doing here and I am in no way trying to shit on you guys. I don't want to see the thread turn ugly either, but I saw no signs that it was going to do so. A snip and a tuck here and there I can understand and see no problems with, but the feeling that I am getting in your attempt to make it clear how the forum should be from the start is that you want to not have discussions about sensitive topics at all, even if people are able to remain calm during them.
And the reason I made this post to begin with wasn't to take a dump on your heads, but to point out that that is how it is coming across, even if it is not what you're intending. If it is what you're intending, then that is fine. However I really don't think that you're intending to loom over the userbase like a Catholic Nun with a ruler.
It is possible to make points without being excessively combative. It isn't always as fun and certainly making your point strongly will often not result in conflict, but we are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of rhetorical enthusiasm to keep a tone of discussion rather than argument.
It is possible to make points bluntly without being excessively combative. It is completely possible to have a debate without having an argument. Are you willing to sacrifice a carefully worded, rational debate about a sensitive topic that could improve perspectives and play for all parties involved simply out of concern that there's a small possibility, even if it's going fine now, that it might get out of hand at some unknown point in the future without letting it move forward a bit?
It doesn't take much for someone else to see your intent as entirely other - and likely more hostile - than it really is, and things go downhill from there.
And that is when things should be responded to, when they start to go down the hill. When everyone is still climbing up the hill, I would suggest it does damage to the conversation to stop it out of fear that when they get to the top someone might stumble.
-
What do you mean when you talk about being 'blunt'?
-
Me in this thread.
Edit: And for that matter, every post I've made on this forum. Also much of Ashar's posts, he's pretty blunt about things, too, though I find him to be equally non-combative.
-
Hey, I'm catholic! :p
Also, please decide if there's shit or poop in the title, its confusing to call up another thread every five minutes :D
-
Hahaha. That came about because I editted the first post and some people aren't replying to the first post. :D I will try to catch it whenever I reply to people!
-
I suspect the mods are feeling their way forward, and so occasionally might react slightly off from their ideal. It happens.
And, were I one of them, I don't know that I would take the OP as calm and level-headed (though I certainly can see the constructive bits within it).
Ahh, but see that's the thing. I was. I was speaking very bluntly, but my post wasn't combative. I was explaining what I saw and how I saw it, and what I feel could be done to rectify it and/or to improve it.
I was offering constructive criticism, and as I am not one that beats around the bush about things, I just dumped it out directly and bluntly.
This is where I think a divide lies. One can be blunt and non-combative. People tend to misread me, because they read into what it is I'm saying as an angry voice simply because there's no flowery language that makes them feel good.
I don't really like to mess around with that, and if that means that my style of speech is not welcome here I can gladly limit my posting to a bare minimum as I've no intention of disrupting what you're making here.
As I said, I'm not trying to shit on any of the moderators here. I understand clearly that there are learning curves and there is water-testing and so on.
I am, however, seeing a trend that concerns me as from my PoV it is swinging the pendulum too far to the opposite direction, causing precisely the opposite problem that they are moving away from.
So I am attempting to offer criticism to help them understand the perspective I am getting and why that perspective is coming about, so that they can then decide to tell me to piss off and that I'm out of line, or they can move forward to attempt to hit that middle-ground that I believe (possibly incorrectly) they are aiming for.
-
I ask because 'blunt' is often code for rude.
That may not be the case with you, of course. Let me quote a couple other bits of the FAQ though:
Q: What's the difference between debate and argument?
A: Debate or discussion involves people putting forward their ideas and opinions. Argument is when people start fighting over whose ideas or opinions are 'right'. For example, if you find yourself responding to a post with anything along the lines of 'You're wrong, because...', stop and think. Don't sit there working out what's wrong with someone else's idea. Propose your own, and tell us all the ways in which it's awesome. Everybody wins a discussion: nobody wins an argument.
Q: So you want us to act all lovey-dovey?
A: Yes. Deal with it.
Q: Isn't that against my right to free speech?
A: Right again. Deal with that, too.
Q: Isn't all this subjective?
A: Yes. The Mods do their best to be fair, but inevitably, this is a subjective standard. Another thing for you to Deal With.
Q: What about free and frank debate?
A: Strange as it may seem, given some of the forums on the internet, but it is possible to have an honest exchange of views without being rude, hostile, offensive, aggressive or bullying. That kind of behaviour destroys communities, virtual and otherwise, and Will Not Be Tolerated.
Now, getting your points across briefly and with clarity is certainly fine. A bare minimum of words used to convey what you want to convey without using flourishes and flowery language is even, perhaps, to be admired. Stating your opinions baldly and with emphasis is ok. Being rude is not, and there is a difference.
If someone has trouble judging what that difference is, in the context of the standards of this forum, then mods will use the tools at their disposal to make it more clear.
-
I personally find many of Ashar's posts combative. Communication involves both the speaker's intent and the listener's perception, and in this case (and others), lots of perceptions go awry when "blunt" phrasing gets used.
-
I suspect the mods are feeling their way forward, and so occasionally might react slightly off from their ideal. It happens.
And, were I one of them, I don't know that I would take the OP as calm and level-headed (though I certainly can see the constructive bits within it).
Ahh, but see that's the thing. I was. I was speaking very bluntly, but my post wasn't combative. I was explaining what I saw and how I saw it, and what I feel could be done to rectify it and/or to improve it.
To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.
Saying 'I didn't mean it to be x' doesn't mean other people might not see it that way. That is why the FAQ encourages people to err on the side of 'lovey-doveyness'. I know there have been any number of times when I have posted something, and it has been taken in a completely different way than I intended.
-
To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.
To some people saying "God Bless You" when they sneeze is rude.
Saying 'I didn't mean it to be x' doesn't mean other people might not see it that way. That is why the FAQ encourages people to err on the side of 'lovey-doveyness'. I know there have been any number of times when I have posted something, and it has been taken in a completely different way than I intended.
Right, but the FAQ encourages people to be grown-ups. In any communication, be it on a forum or otherwise, as Casi said intent and perception matter, and can go awry.
If the people are grown-ups in a conversation face-to-face, the initial response if one didn't understand something or thought that someone was being combative would be to request clarification. In fact in sales or customer service (for example), the first thing you are taught is that when someone says something to you, you repeat to them what they just said as a paraphrased question, so that you limit the communication problems.
In any conversation or discussion between two adults, there will be numerous misunderstandings and mis-perceptions that will go on. I speak in the same tone of voice here that I do irl, and though on forums people give me crap about hostility from time to time, irl and in many forums that I have been on, I have no such problems, because those people ask.
I am one of those people that irl tends to have a sardonic sense of humor. I like a good dig, on someone or myself it doesn't matter. Occasionally I cross a line, occasionally that line is only crossed from the perspective of one person, however that person then says "Wow, that was a bit offensive" and the situation is then resolved like adults.
Take this thread as an example. Casi expressed displeasure with how I worded some of the OP. So I went back and fixed it for her to help clarify the intention of the post.
-
To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.
To some people saying "God Bless You" when they sneeze is rude.
The above seems, to me, dismissive. Is that how you intended it?
I'm simply trying to illustrate why some things that you think are reasonable may get you moderated. The thing about moderation is, of course, that it is unlikely that you can keep everyone happy with it. Comes with the job I guess.
I don't think the issue some might have with your initial post was the profanity, by the way.
In any case, I think I've made it as clear as it is likely to get. Hopefully people who are having trouble with the moderation on the boards will get a better idea of it as it is practiced. In the mean time, I can only recommend re-reading the Rules, FAQ, and Mission Statement.
-
To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.
To some people saying "God Bless You" when they sneeze is rude.
The above seems, to me, dismissive. Is that how you intended it?
Not exactly. More intended to make an example of what you stated in the following quote down below. If anything it was a "slippery slope" argument.
I'm simply trying to illustrate why some things that you think are reasonable may get you moderated. The thing about moderation is, of course, that it is unlikely that you can keep everyone happy with it. Comes with the job I guess.
Yes, administration is pretty thankless, and that sucks. I would like to stress again I'm really not trying to shit on you guys. I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I understand how much of a PITA it is. I'm actually trying to be constructive here.
I don't think the issue some might have with your initial post was the profanity, by the way.
I am more than willing; as has been evidenced throughout the thread I think, to take as much time and as much work clarifying anything I was saying to anyone that takes issue with anything I have said. I have infinite patience in attempting to be understood as intended.
The fact that people do not/will not/are not given the option to do so is, I think, the core of the issue that I am taking that spawned this thread.
In any case, I think I've made it as clear as it is likely to get. Hopefully people who are having trouble with the moderation on the boards will get a better idea of it as it is practiced. In the mean time, I can only recommend re-reading the Rules, FAQ, and Mission Statement.
So be it. Again, I'm not trying to take a proverbial poo on your proverbial heads or claim that things are being poorly managed or any such nonsense. I am simply attempting to offer a perspective you may not be personally privy to, as yours obviously is going to differ. That's all.
-
Secondly, you're locking a thread on and off at random times when the thread isn't even heated. It is a simple, calm discussion about a topic which may be sensitive, but both sides of the discussion were very calm and neither was being nasty. They were simply offering their opinions and substantiating them.
The reason for the temp lock was a moderation was going to take place and by the time I could click Modify Post, two new posts had been made - one of which quoted the text that was going to be moderated. To give myself time and avoid the thread from spiraling out of control surrounding that comment and becoming a situation that wouldn't be easily salvaged, I 'hit the pause button', so to speak, in order to give the thread a brief cooldown and make sure that a mistake wasn't made.
As frustrating as that might be, I believe it is much less frustrating than when a well-intentioned moderator removes a piece of text from one post while letting it stand in another. Before the forum opened, there was a lot of discussion over whether we'd bother with *snip* moderation at all due to how easy it is to lose track of a thread people are actively posting in right that minute. The end result was a loose guideline that left up to moderator discretion whether a post (or series of posts) were good enough on the whole to be saved by removing just a small bit of offensive text or whether said posts should be binned to the Catacombs as well as whether or not such an action would be followed be an outright thread lock. It was also agreed upon that, if a mod should decide that it was worth taking the time to *snip*, they would temporarily lock the thread in order to do so as carefully and correctly as possible to prevent that action from creating a worse situation than already existed - which we've seen happen elsewhere under similar circumstances.
Does this apply only in the aspect of people having to be all butterflies and honey with people or does it also not apply to people being able to have a grown-up discussion about a topic that may be a bit sensitive?
I hope you'll agree that the text that was left intact (the great majority of it) is far from butterflies and honey or gumdrops and lollipops...
With regard to the difference between "I disagree" and "you are incorrect", I'll elaborate again that I see the two phrases as being quite different:
"I disagree" = I see your point, but I have a different opinion.
"You are incorrect" = I see your point and it is wrong, my opinion is the only correct one.
If I had said "You're wrong about this" that would be one thing, but that wasn't what was said or even hinted at, it was "I think you may have set up your categories incorrectly".
While I'm sure it may seem like a negligible difference, if you'd said "I think you may have...", it would've been a different matter entirely. Adding the word "may" expresses respect for the fact that opinions other than yours "may" be correct. The quote as posted was:
I think you have the two "Primary Views of thought" incorrectly set out in general [...]
(The full text is linked in the quote header for context, of course.) Ghost could very well have responded with, "No, I think YOU'RE incorrect," and then who knows what wildness the thread may have spiraled off into as tempers grew progressively more heated in argument (rather than discussion). Obviously, Ghost did not take your meaning to be combative or offensive and the thread continued civilly; no harm, no foul, as it were.
If the subject is something that can be factually discussed "ex: ice is cold", that's one thing. If the subject is a matter of opinion (undocumented Schools of Sansha thought or whether or not PIE is a cult of personality, for example), it's a different thing entirely. We don't want good discussions being bogged down and becoming arguments where one 'side' gets wrapped up in defending itself from the other 'side' which has become equally wrapped up in 'proving' its 'right-ness'.
As I expressed in the PM you reference, though, I didn't see it as intentional on your part and Ghost obviously wasn't put out by the wording, so all's well that ends well. This "The rules are subjective" bit works both ways; we can subjectively choose to moderate based on the spirit of the rules and guidelines and we can subjectively choose not to moderate, again, based on the spirit of the rules and guidelines.
As Silver said, though, no punitive action was taken and no warning was recorded. While I do understand why you would perceive it that way and apologize if I wasn't clear enough about the non-warning intention of the PM, I hope you'll understand that with the sort of atmosphere we're trying to create and how it contrasts with the sort of atmosphere most of the community is already used to, we're tending to want to err on the side of caution, especially early on.
Lastly, I'd like to say that I'm not personally offended by this thread (nor was I by the opinions you expressed in our exchange of PMs the other day :)) and I appreciate the time you've taken to offer your insight as well as the insight itself. I do agree that there is the potential for this forum to be over-moderated just as there is the potential for Chatsubo to be under-moderated. Relevant to that concern, I think it's worth pointing out that as the forum's only three days old, I think the longer it goes and the more folks acclimate to a different "posting culture", the less moderation will be needed.
-
Despite the baffling title of the thread, I will grace it with my disturbing presence.
Lillith, you should know that there are always good odds that a thread I'm in will turn ugly.
When it's one I feel as strongly about as the Amarr Bloc thread, and when I've spoken to the admins about it before and they know the strength of my conviction as well as the acerbic depths my tone can shift into, well.
They're probably making the mistake of not banning me sooner.
Now. Had I been involved in more of the Smoke-Filled Room discussions where the framework of ideas that the forum was assembled over was hammered together, I'd have fought far more vehemently for this forum to best serve the sort of audience that was ten hairs away from an uncompromising, unreasonable, ethnic-slur-utilizing baboon that's right at home on the likes of 4chan's random board, and fuck the mod turnover that'd have caused. But things got decided otherwise.
Meaning...your point concerning the PM may well have been on the ball, but I doubt any power on earth short of the community showing some pretty repulsive true colors will move the team here away from trying to keep things amicable, and amicable to their standard or something only a few degrees from it, for quite some time. We'll just have to see if that's hidden wisdom or merely a fool's errand.
-
Also.
Text is an inherently cold medium. Lillith and I know that on some level, I expect.
But what you never know in a new environment is the precise cost of doing business. Here, it is rather high.
Admittedly, I feel it's higher than it REALLY needs to be, but my opinion is counterbalanced by a number of other people on the other side of the line.
If the mods here manage to keep things sufficiently amicable, welp. We'll get a bigger userbase, to some degree.
And honestly, all the moderation is transparent. All the moderation is reversible. You are posting in a forum where you can request that mod actions which have been committed with an eye to transparency be reconsidered by those who oversee the moderators; you have gotten answers.
It's better'n none.
EDIT: However, having just re-read the post in question as well as Havvo's argument, I think I'd have preferred it if the mods went ahead and waited for Ghost to respond in the expectedly bad way before pre-emtively pushing Lillith to alter posting behavior.
Mostly because it is expected that as Ghost and Lillith are both members of a tiny group of people that all know each other and are at least mildly familiar with each others' styles of interaction, and the thread deals with the very subject matter their group is concerned with, there is a broader context to the incident that is likely entirely responsible for Lillith's feeling a bit alienated when she's being pre-emptively modded in speaking to someone who knows her. Or him. Whatever goddamn gender you are, Lillith, I don't know.
Personally, I feel things like that should play some kinda factor.
-
Perhaps I am mistaken, but in general I think this is where Backstage intends to differ from Chatsubo. Over there, this might be par for the course. Over here, they want to guide the conversation gently into a slightly different tone.
-
EDIT: However, having just re-read the post in question as well as Havvo's argument, I think I'd have preferred it if the mods went ahead and waited for Ghost to respond in the expectedly bad way before pre-emtively pushing Lillith to alter posting behavior.
Mostly because it is expected that as Ghost and Lillith are both members of a tiny group of people that all know each other and are at least mildly familiar with each others' styles of interaction, a
However, not everyone who reads these forums is part of that group or knows that Ghost and Lilith have such a history, and we're trying to create an atmosphere that is welcoming.
'Everyone who knows me knows I don't mean any harm' doesn't work when a new player checks out the site. They read the text 'cold'.
-
Perhaps I am mistaken, but in general I think this is where Backstage intends to differ from Chatsubo. Over there, this might be par for the course. Over here, they want to guide the conversation gently into a slightly different tone.
Then it definitely needs to be made plain that it is not a slightly different tone, but a monumentally different one.
This is a community that's sawtoothed around the edges. I think I might have been srs when quoting Tennyson.
-
I'm a guy.
Ghost and I don't have much of a history.
Prior to my 2 month absence and my inevitable return, Ghost and I have only really communicated directly (not counting on here in that one thread) about four times that I can recall.
But as to this:
They read the text 'cold
No, they're not reading the text cold. That's the point. If you had read my initial post in this thread cold you would not have perceived it as hostile. You instead read the text as 'hot'.
Therein is the rub, and what Ashar was trying to say here:
Text is an inherently cold medium. Lillith and I know that on some level, I expect.
Aggression isn't cold. Aggression is hot. Aggression is passionate. Rational is cold.
Read the text cold, I implore you.
-
However, not everyone who reads these forums is part of that group or knows that Ghost and Lilith have such a history, and we're trying to create an atmosphere that is welcoming.
'Everyone who knows me knows I don't mean any harm' doesn't work when a new player checks out the site. They read the text 'cold'.
Well, point is point, but if the impact of their phrasing has nothing to do with them - if in fact it is for the benefit of interaction between others around them - then just save them the bother since you're already PMing them and edit their posts.
Or, you could make clear precisely for whose benefit the requested change in phrasing is, but really, that's taking it past reasonable or amicable and into pathetic. There's friendly overtures to account for language, and then there's constantly walking on eggshells. I refuse the latter; if I get banned for it, so be it. If you have to edit my posts or flood my inbox with PMs constantly, I can only nod and smile, or leave.
That does not preclude me from working at accomplishing the former.
-
I hope you'll agree that the text that was left intact (the great majority of it) is far from butterflies and honey or gumdrops and lollipops...
With regard to the difference between "I disagree" and "you are incorrect", I'll elaborate again that I see the two phrases as being quite different:
"I disagree" = I see your point, but I have a different opinion.
"You are incorrect" = I see your point and it is wrong, my opinion is the only correct one.
Havo: I didn't name names because I wasn't really all that upset about it, it was just an example that was one of my causes of concern.
The thing about it is you're misquoting here (though you do quote it correctly later). It's not the comparison of "I disagree" and "You are incorrect". It is the comparison of "I disagree" and "I think you are incorrect". Simple paraphrase "I don't think that's right". Which is exactly what you mean when you say "I disagree".
I will contend this unto my dying breath! ;)
-
Aggression isn't cold. Aggression is hot. Aggression is passionate. Rational is cold.
Read the text cold, I implore you.
And the buzzer rang out.
Nah. It's like that one post Wanoah made concerning politeness on chatsubo - it's all the little bits of language that get lost in translation from speech to text that make something truly neutral.
"I don't like that." versus "Oh, well, um...It's just not really my kinda thing, you know?"
You and I, Lillith, have a predilection for cold tones; I just also have one for hot ones.
We're not hitting a neutral point. And it may be arbitrary or mainstream, but the adoption of neutral tones IS the established means of communication in much of the known world, if you expect to avoid a clobbering. In your case, you're just not inherently cold enough in your phrasing to put people out sufficiently to earn one.
And yes, you can be an uber-moderator and still be biased about this while fulfilling the functions of stringent administration of a board just fine an' dandy.
-
You didn't really disagree with what I said by what you stated, though, Ashar.
Cold is uncaring. It is indifference. It is pure, unadulterated logic. You can't really read something as being "cold" and think it's aggressive. A woman giving the cold shoulder is not striking you with it. She's turning it away in disregard.
If one reads what someone wrote "cold", then what they will read is a post from a person that really doesn't care about the final verdict. Not neutral, but entirely non-combative as they are indifferent to the end result.
If someone sees a post as hostile, aggressive, or combative, they are reading the text as "hot", not "cold".
-
And yet, cold is not amicable.
They're going for amicable.
Can you manage amicable and rational? If not, it seems your only penalty is a stack of PMs at the moment.
-
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant it in this sense:
"When coming to a text 'cold' without the benefit of extra information ..." Texts and contexts: introducing literature and language study, Adrian Beard, p 11
-
The thing about it is you're misquoting here (though you do quote it correctly later). It's not the comparison of "I disagree" and "You are incorrect". It is the comparison of "I disagree" and "I think you are incorrect". Simple paraphrase "I don't think that's right". Which is exactly what you mean when you say "I disagree".
I will contend this unto my dying breath! ;)
Fair enough; I amend:
"I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.
I suspect we'll agree to disagree here, but to me the addition of "I think" alters the context much less than the addition of the word "may" or transposition of the phrase "I disagree" as opposed to "(I think) you are incorrect." Yes, I agree that they mean essentially (but not exactly) the same thing; I think there's a great deal of value in the cliché "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."
-
Ciarente L. Roth, it is not even six AM where you are. Stop moddin' this forum and go have a morning untouched by our insanity : /
-
@ Havo:
"I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.
No. You're adding more than is there. "I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong (STOP)."
If it was ". . ., I think that my opinion is the only correct one" then it would have been worded differently worded.
Unless you are meaning to imply that "I disagree" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.
If so why allow people to say they disagree? Do you see where I am going here?
@ Cia: Duly noted.
@ Ashar: Amicable: Peaceable. Easily handled. Cold rational is generally peaceable. Though from what you are implying I assume you meant amiable, in which case... no, I'm not an amiable person.
-
Yeah, I might've, tired.
And yeah, you kinda are. You're being one to me, right now, as per my expectations of...amiability? Whatever. Other people have different benchmarks for it; I just don't expect to get my head bitten off and consider that a BIG FUCKING RAINBOW-SMILE from folks because I'm basically from hell.
-
@ Havo:
"I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.
No. You're adding more than is there. "I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong (STOP)."
If it was ". . ., I think that my opinion is the only correct one" then it would have been worded differently worded.
Unless you are meaning to imply that "I disagree" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.
I already detailed exactly how I take "I disagree"; that wasn't it.
What it hinges on is the word "incorrect" and its synonyms (i.e.: "wrong"). The extra stuff (i.e.: I think that my opinion is the only correct one) is implicit in the choice of those words. They carry an undesirable connotation. I don't know how to be more clear in explaining my position.
-
I already detailed exactly how I take "I disagree"; that wasn't it.
What it hinges on is the word "incorrect" and its synonyms (i.e.: "wrong"). The extra stuff (i.e.: I think that my opinion is the only correct one) is implicit in the choice of those words. They carry an undesirable connotation. I don't know how to be more clear in explaining my position.
No, they do not carry an undesirable connotation. They carry an undesirable connotation to you, and what I am trying to understand is exactly why they do. "Incorrect" is just a word. "I think this is incorrect" is just a roundabout way of saying "I disagree with this statement". There is no implication of "My opinion is all that is right" in that statement unless the reader opts to put it there.
If you were to tell me (which you have in not so many words) that my viewpoint on something was something you thought wasn't correct, I would not in any way take the implication that you were saying "Shut up, you're stupid and I'm right" or "Your opinion is wrong and mine is the only correct one". So what I am trying to understand is why do you?
Why do you choose to add additional context to the statement when that context was not there? You even stated yourself that "upon further reading I could tell that's not what you're saying" or something near to those words. If you see the context of the entire statement and see that what you have decided to arbitrarily add to the statement ex post facto in your own mind, the question is why?
This is almost as though one is fishing for things to moderate. You have the context of the original statement, and it shows clearly that what you decided to read into it initially was not there. Why would you then continue to argue that there was anything wrong with how it was worded, as the additional statements you continue to add to the end of it contextually have no relevance to the original statement?
-
Except no moderation was performed, Lilith. Also, it has that connotation for many people. Perhaps you didn't realize that, but Havo PMed you and let you know.
-
I didn't say it WAS moderated, Silver, I said it is almost as though one is FISHING for things to moderate.
And that connotation is entirely on the reader's head, honestly. The statement taken in context was even said to be perfectly fine. It's when removed from context it apparently was problematic. Anyway, as said I'm not training to crap on anyone, so I will simply restate my intentions one last time in another paraphrase, and then you all can have the last word or not and lock it or not or whatever you opt to do.
In communication there are three things involved. Sender. Message. Receiver.
Communication can break down upon any link of that chain.
If the problem is not that the Sender was Aggressive then the Sender has done their part amicably.
If the problem is not that the Message was Aggressive, then the message is cool.
If the problem is that the Receiver took that something was aggressive out of context. . .
Then requesting that the Sender alter the Message is not the solution. Whether it was a "friendly reminder" or a "moderation action" is not relevant.
That is all. Do as you will.
-
As I understood things from the moment I signed up, the guidelines more or less stated outright that we should assume those sorts of phrases carry that sort of connotation. And in fact, that's largely the reason this site exists in the first place.
If one does not wish to communicate in that way, lots of other sites don't mind and take a much more hands-off, light touch to moderation. Backstage exists for those of us that do mind and hope to see a harder line taken on moderation, including explaining to those with more direct communication styles that their words might appear otherwise.
Hav apparently tried to make a gentle reminder early in the process before anything got out of hand. I guess he didn't do so early enough... ;)
-
And that connotation is entirely on the reader's head, honestly.
Fundamental difference in outlook. You are responsible for what you post, not the reader.
-
I didn't say it WAS moderated, Silver, I said it is almost as though one is FISHING for things to moderate.
And that connotation is entirely on the reader's head, honestly. The statement taken in context was even said to be perfectly fine. It's when removed from context it apparently was problematic. Anyway, as said I'm not training to crap on anyone, so I will simply restate my intentions one last time in another paraphrase, and then you all can have the last word or not and lock it or not or whatever you opt to do.
In communication there are three things involved. Sender. Message. Receiver.
Communication can break down upon any link of that chain.
If the problem is not that the Sender was Aggressive then the Sender has done their part amicably.
If the problem is not that the Message was Aggressive, then the message is cool.
If the problem is that the Receiver took that something was aggressive out of context. . .
Then requesting that the Sender alter the Message is not the solution. Whether it was a "friendly reminder" or a "moderation action" is not relevant.
That is all. Do as you will.
That is the rationale people often use to not moderate things, or to hide insults and derision: 'It's not my fault if it's seen as/They didn't mean it to be offensive.'
It is one of the specific things that this forum was designed to remedy. As I said before though, I understand that might not be clear to some people. Since explanations here don't seem to be making any of it clearer, perhaps just wait and see what gets moderated, and that will illustrate things.
As Havo put it (while I was still writing this response: The poster is responsible, not the reader.
That isn't a license for people to use being offended as a weapon - that's why we have moderators to look at things - but it means there is a certain standard for posting. We give people credit for being able to look at their own posts and see where they might cause problems. With that credit comes a responsibility.
If you do have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask, though.
-
It's far better for a new forum to start off with tough moderation and then let things slack off a little after a while than it is to start off with a lassez faire policy and then try to get tough when the flaming starts.
And now, some delightful kitties.
(http://itsfuriousbalancing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/moderator-cat.jpg)
(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/5/23/128875534689388422.jpg)
-
I know I said I was done with this thread, however I feel compelled to state that I approve of the delightful kitties.
That is all.